Insertion of a Legacy
I may be reading too much into this, but it strikes me as odd that some versions of this AP report of good news in Iraq contain Obama’s name, but none (that I’ve found) contain Bush’s:
Attacks fell in November to their lowest monthly level since the Iraq war began in 2003, a top U.S. commander said Wednesday. …
U.S. troops are working with Iraqi soldiers and police in hopes of improving their performance ahead of substantial withdrawals expected next year.
President-elect Barack Obama wants to bring most U.S. combat troops home from Iraq within 16 months.
My recollection is that the withdrawals were already being planned, based on improvements in the field. Am I wrong? We may have the first sign, here, of a fawning media’s intention to make ultimate success in Iraq part of President Obama’s legacy, rather than President Bush’s, even before he’s taken office.
Is that similar to the Iranian hostages being released soon after Reagan took office? Too soon for him to have done much? And Carter got no credit for that?
Give Pres. Carter credit for the release of the hostages?
Oh c’mon!
There is no question that the hostages were released because of the threat that Iran perceived from the incoming Reagan administration.
They were no longer of any value to the Iranians and, indeed, continuing to hold them created a very grave risk that the new President would take military action against the Iran.
The forces agreement alluded to in the last ‘graph of the article also contains provisions for the exit of American troops in that time period. Doesn’t matter what Obama wants, unless he’s ready to renegotiate that agreement.
Yet another example of how the lame-stream media is putting itself out of business via poor reporting.